Who is God? Here is the answer

[Aussieman88]

Only that which is finite needs a cause. Science never said that everything needs a cause only that which is finite, That which came into being needs a cause. God by definition is infinite and therefore does not need a cause. So the one who asks the question is positioning the question based on a false assumption. God is an uncaused being.

If the argument is that everything needs a cause then he would have to pose an infinite series of causes and if you have an infinite series of causes over an infinite period of time then you would never have come to this moment because it would have taken an infinite number of moments in order to get here. But because now exists, there has been a finite period of time behind you in order to get here. With God it’s not that everything needs a cause it’s only everything that is finite that needs a cause.

You are either UNCAUSED, SELFCAUSED OR CAUSED BY ANOTHER.
everything that is Selfcaused is self defeating because something has to exist prior to you being affected. To be caused by another, that person has to exist before you and if that person is finite he or she needs to be caused as well. The only thing that remains? UNCAUSED, is that which is infinite. The definition of which is, an uncaused entity, which is God.

In addition:
1: If you take Everything or Anything Physical in this world. No matter how you section it, divide it, split it, - it has a reason for its existence outside of itself. The only thing therefore that could explain its own existence would have to be something NON physical.

1. Any time you see that which is intelligent, you assume an intelligence behind it.
2. When you look at the human experience and in history, you see the revelation of God coming to us in the person of christ through the old and the new testaments.

So who is God? He is a spiritual, intelligent being who has entered history and disclosed himself. Revealing himself to humankind. That’s who God is.

This explanation is from Ravi Zacharias one of the worlds leading apologists.

 

[wanabesaint]

thankyou for an entertaining post,

God is beyound our Comprehension, creator of all.
God is proven by science in the mere aknowledgement of Life, to which God alone gives.

 

[odhiambo]

**God is my Creator! **

 

[dshix]

Heh, this is interesting. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone just post the Cosmological Argument in a thread like this. Good idea! Permit me to mention a few things.

Only that which is **finite **needs a cause. Science never said that everything needs a cause only that which is finite, That which came into being needs a cause. God by definition is **infinite **and therefore does not need a cause. So the one who asks the question is positioning the question based on a false assumption. God is an uncaused being.

The technical terms are “contingent” and “non-contingent.” Things that are finite, and need a cause, are contingent, and God, who is infinite, self-sufficient, and necessary, is non-contingent.

If the argument is that everything needs a cause then he would have to pose an infinite series of causes and if you have an infinite series of causes over an infinite period of time then you would never have come to this moment because it would have taken an infinite number of moments in order to get here. But because now exists, there has been a finite period of time behind you in order to get here. With God it’s not that everything needs a cause it’s only everything that is finite that needs a cause.

Very good. Only God is infinite, all other things are finite and contingent.

You are either UNCAUSED, SELFCAUSED OR CAUSED BY ANOTHER.
everything that is Selfcaused is self defeating because something has to exist prior to you being affected. To be caused by another, that person has to exist before you and if that person is finite he or she needs to be caused as well. The only thing that remains? UNCAUSED, is that which is infinite. The definition of which is, an uncaused entity, which is God.

Wait a minute. There is no such thing as “selfcaused,” not in science or in our experience of nature. Nothing can bring itself into existence, because that suggests that it had the power to bring itself into existence before it existed. The two categories which apply are “uncaused” (God) and “caused” (all contingent beings.)

In addition:
1: If you take Everything or Anything Physical in this world. No matter how you section it, divide it, split it, - it has a reason for its existence outside of itself. The only thing therefore that could explain its own existence would have to be something NON physical.

1. Any time you see that which is intelligent, you assume an intelligence behind it.
2. When you look at the human experience and in history, you see the revelation of God coming to us in the person of christ through the old and the new testaments.

So who is God? He is a spiritual, intelligent being who has entered history and disclosed himself. Revealing himself to humankind. That’s who God is.

This explanation is from Ravi Zacharias one of the worlds leading apologists.

These points are not from the Cosmological argument, and so I will not address them because they are weak without the supporting context of their respective arguments.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I’ve always been impressed with how well such arguments line up with who God says He is in Exodus: “I am Who Am.” He is that which, in itself, just Is. He is being itself. “Being” necessarily cannot be created for without it already there there could be nothing to create it, and it must necessarily exist in order for anything else to exist - for nothing can possibly exist if there is no such thing as existence.

Which is why, when my 3 year old nephew repeatedly asks “why,” after about the sixth itteration I tell him that if he asks that question long enough he’ll get the answer “because Existence Exists.” At which point he usually looks at me funny and says “ok.”

 

[rossum]

Only that which is finite needs a cause. Science never said that everything needs a cause only that which is finite, That which came into being needs a cause. God by definition is infinite and therefore does not need a cause. So the one who asks the question is positioning the question based on a false assumption. God is an uncaused being.

You have not justified using “being”. The cause of our universe may be an eternal multiverse, within which the Big Bang arose. Such a multiverse would be eternal, as you argue, but it would not be a “being” in the sense which I suspect you are using the word.

You also have a problem with “cause”. As you point out, a cause has to exist before the effect. That means that a cause is not sufficient on its own. You also need the existence of time. In the absence of time then you cannot determine “before”, since that is measured using time. The cause is necessary, but not sufficient, to explain the universe.

There is also the fact that the cause is contingent on the effect. A cause cannot be a cause unless it has actually caused something. A cause without any effect is about as sensible as a parent who has never had any children. A cause/creator cannot exist until after the act of creation. Before then (time again!) there can only be a potential-creator or a creator-in-waiting.

A detailed analysis of your proposed cause required the prior existence of time (which cannot itself be caused) and that the potential creator changes to an actual creator. That requires a changing creator that is necessary but not sufficient to create and that is contingent on the existence of creation.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The two categories which apply are “uncaused” (God) and “caused” (all contingent beings.)

Certain quantum mechanical events are also uncaused. They just happen without any external cause – some radioactive decays for example.

rossum

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Certain quantum mechanical events are also uncaused. They just happen without any external cause – some radioactive decays for example.

rossum

That’s not quiet what we mean by “caused.” Quantum physics does stipulate that some events are truly random (within some bounds, and with certain average probabilities), but that does not quiet mean “uncaused” in the sense in which we mean it. In order to decay, the atom must exist and be in an unstable state, and then it may decay. But this event is still contingent on other things.

Likewise, free will is truly free: I can freely make decisions. But even such decisions depend on my existence which is contingent on other things.

Some people prefer to use contingency rather than causation for these reasons, but they amount to the same thing.

 

[Aussieman88]

You have not justified using “being”. The cause of our universe may be an eternal multiverse, within which the Big Bang arose. Such a multiverse would be eternal, as you argue, but it would not be a “being” in the sense which I suspect you are using the word.

as in it came to be. not a being as in a life form.

You also have a problem with “cause”. As you point out, a cause has to exist before the effect. That means that a cause is not sufficient on its own.

that’s the point I was making

You also need the existence of time. In the absence of time then you cannot determine “before”, since that is measured using time. The cause is necessary, but not sufficient, to explain the universe.

You are assuming time is not a creation. If we try to define time, in it’s most simple form we could say time is a unit of change. nothing changed when God was there by himself before the big bang because there was no physical matter at all.

There is also the fact that the cause is contingent on the effect. A cause cannot be a cause unless it has actually caused something. A cause without any effect is about as sensible as a parent who has never had any children. A cause/creator cannot exist until after the act of creation. Before then (time again!) there can only be a potential-creator or a creator-in-waiting.

again you don’t know what time is.

A detailed analysis of your proposed cause required the prior existence of time (which cannot itself be caused) and that the potential creator changes to an actual creator. That requires a changing creator that is necessary but not sufficient to create and that is contingent on the existence of creation.

again you don’t know what time is.

rossum

 

[snarflemike]

I’ve always been impressed with how well such arguments line up with who God says He is in Exodus: “I am Who Am.” He is that which, in itself, just Is. He is being itself.

Yes, it all fits together perfectly. Hard to imagine that a bunch of sheep-tending nomads just made that up 3000 years ago.

 

[rossum]

It will help discussion a lot if you can separate your own words from mine. Please use [noparse]

…

[/noparse] round my words so they can be easily recognised.

as in it came to be. not a being as in a life form.

So, “being” means “an existent object”. In particular there is nothing that requires it ot be “spiritual” or “intelligent” as claimed by Zacharias.

You are assuming time is not a creation. If we try to define time, in it’s most simple form we could say time is a unit of change.

I am not assuming time, you are. You used the word “before”. How do you define that word without referring to time?

nothing changed when God was there by himself before the big bang because there was no physical matter at all.

How do you know nothing changed? Change requires time to be measurable. If there is no time then we cannot measure change. How do you know God was there? So far all you have established is the existence of some “being”. You cannot assume the existence of God in an argument that is meant to prove the existence of God. How do you know there was no physical matter? Do you have a detailed description of the multiverse that existed before the Big Bang, and in which the Big Bang arose? You are assuming far too much here.

again you don’t know what time is.

You are the one who assumed time with your “before” and “cause”. I am merely pointing out the necessary contingency of the cause on the effect. There cannot be a creator until there is a creation. If there is no creation then there was no creator.

again you don’t know what time is.

I don’t have to. It is you who requires the existence of time to make your argument. I am merely pointing out the dependency.

rossum